When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I think you mean to be asking about the rings on the pistons. after some reading online I think that it turns out that is a myth. that it overheats the rings. just what I've read
What is up with the whole "You need some back pressure..." thing? It's just plain silly.
Can running a car with no back pressure be OK for the valve train?
Chrysler was doing a lot of experimenting on Vipers trying to get the V-10 exhaust to sound good - not an easy task. On one test mule, they ran straight pipes & dynoed the car. Engine ran hot & made less HP. They let it cool down & then installed a pair of mufflers. Temp came back into range & HP went back up. After hearing this, I would never run straight pipes. The exhaust system benefits from some sort of expansion chamber, a glasspack, oval muffler, etc. Plus, straight pipes do not tune the sound at all, nor do most mufflers for that matter. Also, as far as backpressure, you'll get that from running the correct diameter pipes in addition to the muffler.
Chrysler was doing a lot of experimenting on Vipers trying to get the V-10 exhaust to sound good - not an easy task. On one test mule, they ran straight pipes & dynoed the car. Engine ran hot & made less HP. They let it cool down & then installed a pair of mufflers. Temp came back into range & HP went back up.
I have a hard time believing peak HP went down with straight pipes. Though across the curve it very well could have.
Chrysler was doing a lot of experimenting on Vipers trying to get the V-10 exhaust to sound good - not an easy task. On one test mule, they ran straight pipes & dynoed the car. Engine ran hot & made less HP. They let it cool down & then installed a pair of mufflers. Temp came back into range & HP went back up. After hearing this, I would never run straight pipes. The exhaust system benefits from some sort of expansion chamber, a glasspack, oval muffler, etc. Plus, straight pipes do not tune the sound at all, nor do most mufflers for that matter. Also, as far as backpressure, you'll get that from running the correct diameter pipes in addition to the muffler.
that is only a sign the air fuel mixture is wrong and probably the timing too. i say B.S
that is only a sign the air fuel mixture is wrong and probably the timing too. i say B.S
I agree. I think that may have something to do with how the whole myth started. People would make exhaust mods that decreased backpressure, and see performance decline, and say "Hmm, the engine must need a certain amount of backpressure.". But, in reality, what they did was screw up the tune of the engine. If you decrease backpressure, and then tune for it, you'll see more power. wcsinx may be right, in that in certain situations, and for certain uses, a certain amount of backpressure may be desirable, but, in general, the less backpressure, the better. It is difficult to make blanket statements that have absolutely no exceptions, especially when it comes to how an engine makes power, there are so many variables to take into consideration.
I chose a straight through muffler. These will flow plenty for my 350.
They have a nice deep tone.
Look like my Borla's on my 82. Sound is nice and throaty for a low HP engine. Sounds much more powerful than it is. Even received a trophy one time for best sounding car.
If you are going to try open pipes, you will most likely need to recalibrate the carb. When I changed my (stock type) mufflers to Magnaflows, I had to richen things up a bit.
I am so glad I read this forum. On my way back from the muffler shop after the new pipes I was rolling at around 60mph and then did a gradual WOT. Just when things were really kicking in, I had a back fire and let off. I have an A/F ratio gauge but did not notice the reading. A lean condition would explain it though.
Not to pick nits, but generally speaking you do want some degree of backpressure. The exception case is a engine that spends most of its life at WOT (1/4 mile cars, dyno queens). If your only concern is peak HP, then yes you want absolutely no backpressure. You could take the exhaust plumbing off and blow it straight out the ports for that matter, but that engine will not be streetable IMHO. That is to say, it will generate less HP and torque throughout the majority of its RPM range, it'll run rougher, throttle response will suffer, and it'll be noisy as chit. (but it will make more peak HP)
So if scavenging comes into play more at part throttle, and less back pressure at WOT, is it possible that better scavenging improves economy and mileage and less back pressure improves performance?
I realize the scavenging is increasing performance but at part throttle it may be more of an economy factor.
How about this, when I punch it, is it safe to say I want less back pressure?
So if scavenging comes into play more at part throttle, and less back pressure at WOT, is it possible that better scavenging improves economy and mileage and less back pressure improves performance?
I realize the scavenging is increasing performance but at part throttle it may be more of an economy factor.
Without any scavenging effect, you will see lower power and torque numbers across the majority of the curves. (or at least the part of the curve that's used the majority of the time in day-to-day driving)
And in this context, what is it to improve economy other than to generate more power with the same amount of fuel?
How about this, when I punch it, is it safe to say I want less back pressure?
Even then it's not that simple. If you punch it at low RPM, then the exhaust velocity might still be low enough that you would benefit from some backpressure and/or scavenging. Once you get up to 4k-5k? RPM probably not. Did you know the C6Z has variable valving (actuated by engine vacuum) in its exhaust setup?